When political ads first hit the airwaves in 1952 - think "I Like Ike" - Eisenhower's presidential opponent Adlai Stevenson felt that Americans would be shocked by such contempt for their intelligence. "This isn't Ivory soap versus Palmolive," he said.

Stevenson was only half right: while political ads certainly insult public intelligence, Americans are hardly shocked. And at this point, people are shocked if a political ad is any good and rises above the level of dumb and dumber.

"Like nails going down a chalkboard - complete wallpaper," says Andrew Simon, creative director at DDB Canada, expressing his disgust. A veteran of a non-partisan 'get out the vote' type campaign in Canada, Simon has a few thoughts on why political ads are so bad: every word and gesture is tested to death by "the world's worst focus group," ie. the public - who are guaranteed to be put off by something.

Why? Since the late sixties, political ads are no longer written and produced by the advertising industry. Although ad people may be employed, political consultants, handlers and party hacks are in charge of the message and how it gets delivered. It's a creative team's worst nightmare - like having Satan as a client.

Not surprisingly, the ideas behind the bland or childishly aggressive ads haven't changed much either. "All attack ads are replays of old attacks," says David Schwartz, chief curator of film at New York's American Museum of the Moving Image. "Bush's ad 'Weapons' shows tanks and planes disappearing almost exactly like Nixon's 'McGovern Defense'. You could say that Bush is doing attack #138 of the playbook." Schwartz, who has helped set up The Living Room Candidate, an electronic exhibit of all presidential ads since 1952, admits that the repeated use of the same images, often lashing out at the opponent and exploiting fear, is a bit depressing. "The bottom line is that an ad has to work emotionally. Fear is a primal emotion, and if an ad strikes a deep chord, it's effective." Also, in terms of creative effort, it's pretty easy to do.

"People are more likely to remember a criticism than a positive thing about a politician," explains Paul Rutherford, professor of history at the University of Toronto and author of several books on advertising. Rutherford says in politics, there is more of a clear-cut duality than the 'brand Xing' we're used to with products. "Coke vs. Pepsi is really Coke vs. Pepsi vs. coffee vs. water," he says. "If you buy Tide, you are not condemning Sunlight. In the political sphere, if you tout Bush, you condemn Kerry." So it is like Palmolive and Ivory - only more so. But unlike product advertising, the condemnation is often brutal and need not be based in reality.

In Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, the author relates what is a telling (though probably apocryphal) story. During a presidential contest, Lyndon Johnson apparently told his manager to start a massive rumor campaign about his opponent's habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of sows. The campaign manager protested saying nobody would believe that the guy's a "pigfucker."

"I know," Johnson replied. "But let's make the sonofabitch deny it."

Which is often enough to sink someone.

Barnyard fornication aside, Rutherford notes that ads of this type work best when they "channel a pre-existing sense of doubt" in the public mind. But as effective as the strategy can be, negative and attack ads also have a more ominous side effect. "They not only exploit disenchantment [with a particular candidate], they turn people off politics," he says, noting it's one of the reasons we have a declining participation rate in elections - a rate that suggests that half of the Americans reading this article didn't vote in 2000. Imagine advertising soap the same way.

"The whole industry has completely failed us and is doing a disservice to democracy," says Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of anti-consumption magazine Adbusters and author of Culture Jam, referring to both politics and the media. Lasn sees elections as a missed opportunity to actually deal with real issues, "engaging the public and injecting mind bombs into the public sphere". He's not surprised that public discourse has been reduced to "assassinations and a vindictive game of tearing the other guy down"; Lasn is used to having Adbusters' controversial issue commercials turned down by major networks - though he notes that recently, CNN has run a few. "I threatened them with a lawsuit," he adds.

Despite all the bad news, there may be cause for hope. Organizations such as Moveon.org and the use of new technology have allowed the average citizen to make political ads.

Born of frustration with the "ridiculous waste" of time and money spent on trying to impeach Clinton during the Lewinsky affair, Moveon.org launched a petition to censure the president and move on with real issues. Within days, thousands of people signed up and an Internet-based political grassroots organization was formed.

Six years on, with a mandate to get people involved, the group sponsored "Bush in 30 seconds", a contest encouraging people to make their own political TV commercials to be judged by celebrities including Michael Moore. CBS refused to air the winning entry, "Child's Pay", during the Super Bowl - which served to increase the group's profile and reach. Some do make it to TV, but at rates so insignificant they barely register in public discourse.

There is little doubt that the November '04 U.S. election is one of the hottest in decades and many, despite the increase in candidacy shit fights, are becoming re-engaged. Other grassroots organizations and political action committees are producing their own spots, as are known directors such as Errol Morris, Hollywood types and, for the first time in decades, ad people. The result is quality spots, the likes of which have not been seen in years. [see sidebar]